24-70mm f2.8 lenses

Iffacus

Iffacus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
241
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to get a faster lens primarily for sports but also for some general shots. I have a Nikon D80 with the Kit 18-135 lens and a nikon 80-400.

Looking at various website I can see that they are available at the follow prices

Tamron ~£350
Sigma ~£650
Nikon ~£1200

Now my question is the Nikon worth 4 times the amount as the Tamron or is it better to go for the Sigma?

Thanks
Chris
 
The Nikon lens has a very good image quality in addition to the other advantages of build quality etc - depends whether you want the best.
 
The Nikon is superbly fantastic, great image quality and very quick autofocus. It also feels tough and durable enough to beat a grown man into submission with :thumbs:
 
I have the sigma..... And will upgrade at the first opportunity. The sigma is "alright" but just seems to lack the sparkle of the Nikon. Maybe its me and the way I feel about the sigma that makes me want the Nikon. On the flip side, I have the sigma 70-200 f2.8 and wouldn't swap it for the Nikon version even if someone paid me.

On another note, isn't the 24-70 a little lacking in focal length for sports?
 
Last edited:
The Tamron is ok, but the Nikon is far better. Now, second hand the Tamron is £200 and Nikon £900, is it over 4 times as good??? Go to f8 and difference is not there but is at 3.2 or wide open. Unless I was really skint I would not go back as I love the Nikon so much.
 
look for a used 24-700 and you the price is around £900 or if you ok with the 28 at the wide side then look for a Nikon 28-70 f2.8 and those can be get for around £500-600.

I've got the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 and is a rock solid lens and optic is same or pretty much identical to the 24-70. But the only thing it don't have is nano coating and weather seal but that does not bother me. At the end of the day it is still a Nikon Pro glass with gold ring.
 
stokes - which version of the sigma 70-200 do you have? i'm after a 70-200 but the nikon is so damn expensive...
 
boyfalldown said:
Yes - when you need 24mm. However the 80-200 is way better at 150mm
Click to expand...

I think the question related to the Sigma 70-200 vs the Nikon 80-200. It's probably quite a big question as there are a few versions of each.
 
As with most kit discussions the cliche of 'you get what you pay for' really applies. Over the years I've had all kinds of makes/models including the Tamron you mentioned above. It was ok at best, nothing more nothing less.

Eventually as you grow so does your desire for sharper, faster, stirdier lenses. This has eventually led me to own the Nikon 'holy trinity' (12-24,24-70,70-200). Its taken a while because of the cost but I'd never look back.

In short, if you can afford it and you can appreciate the quality and why you 'need' it, then go Nikon all the way. My 2PW.
 
kalibre said:
As with most kit discussions the cliche of 'you get what you pay for' really applies. Over the years I've had all kinds of makes/models including the Tamron you mentioned above. It was ok at best, nothing more nothing less.

Eventually as you grow so does your desire for sharper, faster, stirdier lenses. This has eventually led me to own the Nikon 'holy trinity' (12-24,24-70,70-200). Its taken a while because of the cost but I'd never look back.

In short, if you can afford it and you can appreciate the quality and why you 'need' it, then go Nikon all the way. My 2PW.
Click to expand...




I could not have said it better - However I have tried to step over the

Over the years I've had all kinds of makes/models including the Tamron you mentioned above. It was ok at best, nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...

And bought the best glass as and when - rather than keep up as many do with Body upgrades - I still need to buy the 14 24 f2.8 - in time;)
 
badboy1984 said:
look for a used 24-700 and you the price is around £900 or if you ok with the 28 at the wide side then look for a Nikon 28-70 f2.8 and those can be get for around £500-600.

I've got the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 and is a rock solid lens and optic is same or pretty much identical to the 24-70. But the only thing it don't have is nano coating and weather seal but that does not bother me. At the end of the day it is still a Nikon Pro glass with gold ring.
Click to expand...

I started a thread on a similar subject a couple of weeks ago. Ended up with a Nikon 28-70. What a wonderful lens. Optically superb, built like a tank and just a joy to use. Only downside for some would be the shear bulk of it. It's bigger and heavier than the Nikon 24-70 which is also a big lens. The Sigma and Tammy look much smaller to me which may be an advantage in some circumstances.

A couple of other options depending on your needs would be the old Nikon 35-70 or the 24-120 F4 VR. Both very well regarded but clearly different uses.
 
When people say the Nikon 28-70 f2.8 is heavy but when you actually compare it with the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 it is pretty much similar.

Nikon 24-70 f2.8 = 900G
Nikon 28-70 f2.8 = 935G

Lots of people go for the 24-70 because they want weather sealing and nano coating and also the 4mm on the wide bit.
 
Make sure you have a good bag for that.

I used to have a cheap bag, and with 24-70 and cam only in there then wondering around somewhere for the day it starts to nag.
 
Comparing the Nikon 24-70 to the Tamron 28-75; obviously the Nikon has that useful extra 4mm at the wide end, and no doubt the build quality is superb.

Have a look at the sharpness graphs in SLRGear.com for these two; at f/2.8 there isn't much difference. From f/4 and smaller apertures, the Tamron is actually sharper than the Nikon. My main lens on the D700, love it.
 
Can't say I had much luck with the Nikon 24-70 for "sport" - I guess it depends on your sport, but it didn't really suit motorsport not even taking into account that its obviously much wider than most would typically shoot motorsport at.

Close up, pictures of people and stuff were fine, although again for what I do the working distances are too close even on a DX body.

I think probably other than the speed of focusing (which I'd still not say was "motorsport fast") there's probably not a lot of advantage optically over a Tamron 28-75..... edit... except maybe flare suppression which the Nikon nano-coat does what all the others can't...

Thats a slightly controversial view, but I had a genuine love/hate relationship with my 24-70 for what I shoot anyway....
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the replies, the sports I mainly cover is cyclo-cross & running and I can usually get to within 3-4m of the riders/runner, having an 80-400 means I'm not to worried about distance shots.

From the comments above it looks like the Nikon is the preferred lens of choice, I'll have a look at the second hand route as well as I can't quite justify £1200 on a lens at the moment
 
You can get a mint Nikon one for 900 on here at the mo.

Really I wouldn't buy brand new, they are plenty common and most people don't abuse such expensive items...
 
It's worth looking at Tokina 28-80 maybe, manufactured by employee who left Nikon. It's probably not as sharp as Nikon or Sigma, but does the job good. Usually second hand goes half of Tamron even and I have seen on sale here at some point. eBay has one as well, auction ends in two days.
 
desantnik said:
You can get a mint Nikon one for 900 on here at the mo.

Really I wouldn't buy brand new, they are plenty common and most people don't abuse such expensive items...
Click to expand...

All my lens and camera is used lol. Except the D7000 i bought new last year because i'm desperate to replace the D5000 lol
 
desantnik said:
You can get a mint Nikon one for 900 on here at the mo.

Really I wouldn't buy brand new, they are plenty common and most people don't abuse such expensive items...
Click to expand...

Thanks, unfortunately I haven't been a member of the forum long enough or have enough posts to look at the classifieds section
 
kalibre said:
As with most kit discussions the cliche of 'you get what you pay for' really applies. Over the years I've had all kinds of makes/models including the Tamron you mentioned above. It was ok at best, nothing more nothing less.

Eventually as you grow so does your desire for sharper, faster, stirdier lenses. This has eventually led me to own the Nikon 'holy trinity' (12-24,24-70,70-200). Its taken a while because of the cost but I'd never look back.

In short, if you can afford it and you can appreciate the quality and why you 'need' it, then go Nikon all the way. My 2PW.
Click to expand...

That is indeed my goal, I just need to funds and the ability to back up the lenses.
 
This is the same thing I asked the other day! I decided on the sigma lens but when I went to jessops to buy they said maybe in around 28 days. They offered me the cheaper tamron but I thought best to retreat I research more!

I think it best to buy the best what you can afford with out breaking the bank!
 
I had a Nikon 24-70 2.8 and managed to put a dent in the focus ring big enough that manual focus was horrible. It was insured so got it fixed but I was surprised how easy it dented, I hadn't even noticed the camera hitting anything. I heard other stories of them being fragile too.

The 28-70 on the other hand I think is more known for being indestructable. You could probably get a used 28-70 for the same money (or less) as a new Siggy 24-70 so do you really need the extra 4mm??
 
There are a lot of stories of broken 24-70s around, either sticking zoom rings or breaking clean off at the mount (see link below), seems to be a fragile thing. Possibly there was a bad run of them but the accounts of them breaking tend to pop up quite regularly.

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/derek_shots/2892593285/
 
I bought my 24-70 on a bit of a whim, got home and realised how much cheaper a 28-70 was and was a bit gutted!
 
It depend how you want to use the lens. If you planning to go shooting in extream weather then the newer version maybe the best since it have weather seal where as the old one doesn't.

Optic quality, they both pretty much the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top